O'QUINN

v.

ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR

Citator

Cited By

• Simons v. State, 389 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
  …reme Court to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the latter court held that the admission of the pretrial identification testimony was harmless constitutional error. U.S. ex rel. Moore v. People of Ill., 577 F. 2d 411 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. den., 440 U.S. 919, 99 S.Ct. 1242, 59 L.Ed.2d 471 (1979). In so deciding, the court addressed two questions: (1) whether the victim’s in-court identification was reliable even though the pretrial con [*265] frontation was suggestive, and (2) whether Illinois presented…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Howard v. State, 458 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
  …observation of appellant at the scene of the crime and not dependent on the unnecessarily suggestive pretrial procedures that were used in this case. See United States ex rel. Moore v. People of Illinois, 577 F. 2d 411 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 919, 99 S.Ct. 1242, 59 L.Ed.2d 471 (1979); Simons v. State, 389 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); and State v. Sepulvado, 362 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1374 (Fla.1979). We find no other error in the trial court, but mention…
• Dep't OF Corr. v. Roseman, 390 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
  ….S. 479, 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). For the reasons stated at length in Johnson, we decline to extend fundamental right status to marriage by state prisoners. See also Hudson v. Rhodes, 579 F. 2d 46 (6th Cir.1978), cert. den., 440 U.S. 919, 99 S.Ct. 1241, 59 L.Ed.2d 470 (1979). The testimony of the Department’s witnesses, summarized by the hearing officer, reveals a rational basis for the Rule’s classifications and restrictions and that the Rule serves legitimate state interests in th…